Big Data has come to the criminal justice system disguised as reform. And Iowans should be wary.

Recently, some have called for reforming the criminal justice system by arguing that computers, rather than judges and prosecutors, should decide whether an alleged criminal should be released into our community before his or her court date.

The current Iowa pretrial release system offers alleged criminals the opportunity to be released before trial by release on recognizance, release with supervision, or release by posting bail. These reformists want to change this because they say computer algorithms can predict better than a judge whether a defendant poses a risk of committing acts of violence while on release or simply skipping court and avoiding being brought to justice altogether.

The suggested benefit of this hands-off approach is that significantly fewer defendants would have to post bail in order to be released before their court date.

In evaluating this data-decision approach, one consideration should be whether defendants will return to court to ensure an adequate and timely administration of justice. Experience tells us that defendants skip court when released without bail versus when a judge looks them in the eye and releases them on bail — an important personal and economic incentive to return.

One study on the issue concluded that “[d]efendants released on surety bond are 28 percent less likely to fail to appear than similar defendants released on their own recognizance, and if they do fail to appear, they are 53 percent less likely to remain at large for extended periods of time.”

There is a reason for such vast differences in the failure-to-appear rates: a lack of bail removes the strong incentive for released defendants to show up to court. Specifically, under the current pretrial system, defendants often have an option to pay a bail amount and be released before their scheduled court date. If they fail to appear at their court date, then they are punished by losing their bail money (which would otherwise be returned).

Doug Gross(Photo: Special to the Register)

Minimizing failure-to-appear rates is essential. First, minimizing failures to appear ensures that justice is fairly and promptly served to accused criminals, victims and society as a whole. As Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady noted this year, the Iowa court system is already hampered due to a lack of necessary funding from state lawmakers. A needless and avoidable increase in failure-to-appear rates by drastically changing the current pretrial release system will only lead to the inefficient use of precious time and resources, and thus further hinder the Iowa court system.

Second, minimizing failures to appear also saves taxpayers money. Failures to appear result in judges issuing warrants, law enforcement officers locating and arresting defendants (again), and further jail time. Each of these steps requires additional time, labor and risks, which costs additional taxpayer money. One study estimated that a single failure-to-appear reduction could potentially be worth $58.72 to $80.10 in savings. These cost reductions do not include the more difficult to calculate social benefits of minimizing failures to appear, such as potential decreases in additional crimes, which can be beyond measurable.

If alleged criminals have a financial incentive to appear at their scheduled court hearing, they are more likely to show up. Moving to a hands-off, computer-based approach that drastically changes our current pretrial system removes this strong incentive to appear, and diminishes the benefits of judicial and prosecutorial discretion. As a result, by keeping our proven pretrial release system, we ensure that our courts remain effective and efficient while saving taxpayers money and achieving justice.